For English Wikipedia, you generally may not use an AI chatbot to generate a new article or rewrite substantial article prose. The English Wikipedia guidance on large language models prohibits generated or rewritten article text, including text placed in a draft or user space. It allows only narrow exceptions: basic, mechanical copyediting of your own writing and translation under the separate translation guidance. Both require careful human review.
You may use AI as an unverified aid to brainstorm gaps or locate possible sources, but the sources—not the chatbot—must support every claim. If an LLM generated or modified text that you submit, mention that use in the edit summary. Conflict-of-interest and paid-editing disclosure rules still apply.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The short answer depends on what “use AI” means
“AI editing” covers several very different activities. English Wikipedia treats them differently according to how much the system contributes to the words and the factual content.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
| Task | English-Wikipedia position | What you must do |
|---|---|---|
| Ask a chatbot to draft a new article | Prohibited | Write from reliable published sources yourself and apply Wikipedia’s content policies. |
| Ask a chatbot to rewrite or expand article prose | Prohibited | Do not paste the output into the article, a draft, or user space. |
| Use an LLM for basic copyediting of your own text | Narrowly allowed | Limit changes to mechanical corrections, review every change, and disclose the LLM use in the edit summary. |
| Translate Wikipedia material with AI | Separate, limited exception | Follow the translation guidance and check meaning, sources, neutrality, and formatting yourself. |
| Brainstorm topics, identify gaps, or find possible sources | Usable as an aid, not as evidence | Treat every suggestion as an unverified lead; open and evaluate the original publication before editing. |
This is the current position of the English-language project, whose community guidance was accessed on October 13, 2026 and last edited October 12, 2026. Other language editions and Wikimedia projects can set different local rules, so do not transfer this exact policy without checking the relevant edition.
#1 Best Overall
Can AI write a new Wikipedia article?
No. The English Wikipedia page “Wikipedia:Large language models” states that using LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited, except for translation and basic copyediting of one’s own work. That prohibition covers a complete article, a new section, a paragraph, or substantial replacement wording.
Putting the output somewhere that is not yet published does not make it acceptable. The guidance specifically says that LLM output should not be added directly into drafts either. A draft, sandbox, or user page is still part of the editing process; moving generated prose there first is not a workaround.
The rule is about the model’s contribution, not whether the prose sounds polished. A fluent paragraph can still contain invented facts, unsupported interpretations, an incorrect date, a non-neutral description, or a citation that does not say what the sentence claims. Human proofreading for grammar cannot cure those problems.
Recommended Free Tools
What counts as prohibited rewriting?
Substantial intervention includes asking an AI system to “improve,” “rewrite,” “expand,” “summarize,” “make more encyclopedic,” or “turn these notes into Wikipedia style” and then using the resulting prose. It also includes asking the model to combine several sources into publishable paragraphs, recast an article’s tone, or fill a missing section with plausible text.
Even when the facts in your prompt came from real sources, the generated wording can introduce new claims or change the emphasis. You remain responsible for the edit, and Wikipedia’s policies require that the published wording be verifiable, neutral, and free of original research. Starting with an AI draft makes it harder to identify which statements came from which source.
How narrow is the copyediting exception?
The exception is for basic copyediting of your own writing, not a general permission to have an LLM rewrite Wikipedia. Local, mechanical corrections can include:
- Correcting spelling or punctuation.
- Fixing capitalization, contractions, or straightforward formatting.
- Removing a clearly redundant word or phrase.
- Splitting an overlong sentence without changing its meaning.
Human review is required. Compare the before-and-after text, check the article context, and reject any suggestion that adds, removes, or recasts a factual claim. A change that alters the argument, changes the degree of certainty, replaces a source’s wording with a new interpretation, or substantially changes style is a rewrite rather than basic copyediting.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →A practical boundary test
Ask whether a careful editor could describe the change without mentioning a new idea. “Corrected two misspellings and removed a duplicate word” is mechanical. “Reframed the paragraph to explain why the policy mattered” introduces editorial judgment and falls outside the narrow exception. When in doubt, make the change yourself from the sources instead of accepting generated prose.
Can AI translate a Wikipedia article?
Translation is treated as a separate, limited exception. An AI translation may help transfer material between language editions, but it does not bypass any other Wikipedia requirement. You must check that the translation preserves the original meaning, attribution, qualifiers, links, references, dates, names, and level of certainty.
Do not assume that a machine translation is neutral or technically accurate. Terms can acquire a different meaning in another language, and a literal rendering can turn a qualified statement into an absolute one. Verify that the target-language article’s sources are usable in that edition and that the translated text complies with its local policies. Translation also does not authorize adding unsupported commentary or expanding the source article.
Can a chatbot be a Wikipedia source?
No. A chatbot is not a reliable published source that readers can inspect. Wikipedia’s verifiability policy requires article facts to be checkable against reliable, published material. Quotations and challenged or likely-to-be-challenged claims need inline citations, and material that needs a citation may be removed when none is supplied.
AI systems can invent a book, give the wrong author, merge two real publications, or attach a genuine citation to a claim it does not support. A citation that looks plausible is not evidence. Open the actual publication, read the relevant passage, and decide whether it supports the exact wording you plan to add.
A source-first checking sequence
- Locate the publication yourself. Do not rely on a URL, title, quotation, or page number supplied by the chatbot.
- Check reliability for the specific claim. A source can be authoritative for one subject and unsuitable for another.
- Read the surrounding context. Confirm that the passage is not conditional, outdated, satirical, or describing someone else’s view.
- Match claim to citation. Narrow the sentence if the source supports only a narrower statement.
- Record the citation in Wikipedia’s format. Preserve attribution and avoid presenting a source’s opinion as an established fact.
Use the model, at most, to suggest search terms or possible gaps. Wiki Education Foundation’s report “Generative AI and Wikipedia editing: What we learned in 2025,” published January 29, 2026, describes participants using AI for gap identification and source discovery while emphasizing human evaluation and warning against using chatbots to generate Wikipedia prose.
Why English Wikipedia restricts generated prose
The community guidance identifies several overlapping risks:
- Hallucinated facts and citations: confident language can conceal invented details or mismatched references.
- Original research: a model may synthesize an interpretation that no reliable source actually publishes.
- Unverifiable claims: a paragraph can sound encyclopedic while lacking a checkable source.
- Non-neutral framing: generated text may give undue weight to one perspective or use promotional language.
- Libel and biography risks: an unsupported allegation about a living person can cause serious harm.
- Copyright problems: a model can reproduce distinctive wording or combine protected text inappropriately.
- Volunteer cleanup: other editors must investigate and repair errors that polished prose makes difficult to spot.
Wiki Education Foundation author Sage Ross summarized the concern in January 2026: “My conclusion is that, at least as of now, generative AI-powered chatbots like ChatGPT should never be used to generate text for Wikipedia; too much of it will simply be unverifiable.” The practical lesson is to verify the source material itself rather than trusting prose because it sounds authoritative.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
How to use AI safely as a research aid
An editor can use a chatbot before writing, provided the model is treated as a brainstorming tool rather than an author or source. A defensible workflow looks like this:
- Define the question. Identify the exact factual gap, time period, and scope of the article.
- Ask for leads, not prose. Request possible search terms, institutions, books, or topics to investigate—not a paragraph to paste.
- Discard unverified suggestions. Assume names, dates, quotations, and links may be wrong until you confirm them independently.
- Read the publications. Decide what each source actually establishes and whether it is reliable.
- Draft manually from your notes. Write concise, neutral sentences that reflect the sources and include citations.
- Review for policy compliance. Check neutrality, undue weight, original research, copyright, biographies of living people, and conflicts of interest.
If the model proposes a fact that you cannot confirm in a reliable publication, leave it out. “The chatbot said so” is never a reason to retain a claim.
Do you have to disclose AI use?
Yes, when an LLM generated or modified text that you submit, the English Wikipedia guidance says to mention that use in the edit summary. Keep the note accurate about what the system did. For example, a summary could state that an LLM was used for punctuation changes to your own draft and that you reviewed the result against the cited sources. Do not describe a substantial rewrite as mere proofreading.
The guidance also discourages non-transparent, AI-written comments on talk pages. Talk-page discussion is part of the editorial record; participants should be able to understand whether a person is presenting their own reasoning or transmitting generated text.
What if you have a conflict of interest?
AI use does not change conflict-of-interest (COI) rules. If you are editing about yourself, your employer, a client, or another relationship that could affect your judgment, disclose the conflict when seeking a change. COI editors are strongly discouraged from directly editing affected articles. The usual route is to explain the proposed change on the article’s talk page so uninvolved editors can assess it.
Best Value
- Our BUT FIRST WIKIPEDIA EDITING FUNNY GIFT is a perfect gift for the WIKIPEDIA EDITOR in your life. For the person in your life who is always EDITING WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES.
- Get this FUNNY GIFT FOR WIKIPEDIA EDITOR as a perfect present for father's day, mother's day, an upcoming birthday father's day, anniversary or Christmas.
- Lightweight, Classic fit, Double-needle sleeve and bottom hem
Paid editors must disclose the payer, client, and relevant affiliation. An AI-assisted edit still belongs to the person or organization submitting it; using a chatbot does not make the relationship anonymous or remove the disclosure obligation.
Common mistakes and how to recover
“I put the generated text in my sandbox first”
That does not evade the restriction. Remove the generated prose and return to the underlying sources. Draft the section yourself, or propose a source-backed change on the talk page if a COI applies.
“The citation exists, so the paragraph is safe”
A real citation can still be mismatched. Read it and rewrite the sentence to fit what it actually says. If it does not support the claim, do not use it.
“I asked for grammar only, but the model changed the meaning”
Reject the output or restore the original wording. Compare every change and keep only localized, mechanical corrections to your own text. A polished sentence that changes a fact is not copyediting.
“The AI made the article more neutral”
Neutrality is an editorial judgment grounded in sources and due weight, not a tone setting. Check which views the sources publish, how prominently they are represented, and whether the wording attributes opinions correctly.
“I forgot to mention AI in the edit summary”
Do not conceal the use. Be transparent about what the LLM generated or modified and ensure that the edit can be reviewed against reliable sources. For future edits, add the disclosure at the time you save the change.
A decision checklist before you click Publish changes
- Did I write the substantive prose myself rather than asking an LLM to generate or rewrite it?
- If I used AI, was it limited to mechanical copyediting of my own text or translation under the applicable guidance?
- Did I inspect every source directly and confirm that it supports the exact claim?
- Are quotations, dates, names, and qualifications accurate?
- Could any sentence be original research, promotional, defamatory, or non-neutral?
- Did I preserve citations and article context while making the edit?
- Did I mention LLM generation or modification in the edit summary?
- Do I have a conflict of interest or paid relationship that must be disclosed and handled through the talk page?
Does this rule apply to every Wikipedia language edition?
No. The prohibition described here is the current English-Wikipedia community guidance. Wikipedia is a collection of language editions with their own policies and practices, and Wikimedia projects can differ as well. Before editing another edition, read that project’s local guidance on large language models, translation, disclosure, sourcing, and conflict of interest. When an edition has no clear local statement, use its general verifiability and attribution rules and ask experienced editors on the relevant project.
Windows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallOutdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchFor English Wikipedia, the safe dividing line is clear: do not submit AI-generated or substantially AI-rewritten article prose. Use AI, if at all, for tightly limited copyediting of your own words, a carefully reviewed translation, or preliminary source-finding—and make the human source check and disclosure visible.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
